Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Not so fast. I told you I'm not talking with you in the PWL anymore (at least not for awhile). The bigotry and hatred in the other thread was too much, man. This isn't a putdown, you need a therapist. It's not healthy for anyone to hate an entire segment of society as much as you do. That level of animosity leads to people joining radical groups like Antifa (if you haven't already), and IMO, if you don't get help, you're going to end up harming someone (or, just as likely, you yourself being harmed).

Originally Posted by Laminar

Explain for me, if you will

No. Reading your posts is like nails on a chalkboard and I've wasted enough time with you.

"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr

Yawn. You don't get to ban me from conversations for any reason at all but certainly not because you say I'm bigoted against bigots. Most decent folk are.
Maybe I do hate Trump and his most loyal supporters but thats only because there is nothing else you can do with them. They don't respond to sense or reason, they have no standards other than to love everything Trump does and hate everything done by any liberal or Democrat. They let him do whatever he wants which is bad whoever it is but Trump is a truly appalling character to pick. The only reason you don't think so is because you and he have a fair bit in common. Mercifully you aren't as bad as him in any respect.
I'm no extremist by any stretch. I'm just passionately against people with awful philosophies, worldviews and opinions. I've calmly rationalised all my dislikes of Trump and other far right conservatives, the perceived anger is all being projected by you. Its odd since I don't subscribe to any of the far left stuff that really gets your goat. I think you just want to believe it because it gives you something to try to throw back at me when I point out some of your more negative and unforgivable proclivities.

Perhaps the real reason you won't talk to me is because I'm running rings around you lately and you simply don't have any answers left.

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....

Are you sure you read it? Or did you stop on the first page. He has an entire section on non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap.

You mean the section where he lists stereotypes of men and women? Yes, I've read that one, too. Apart from “we should embrace our nature as men and women” I didn't see any real policy suggestions aimed at reducing the gap.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

They screwed that pooch when they introduced ideology to the culture. They should (and appear to be) in damage control mode.

Ideology is always part and parcel of culture, it's just that in this case you disagree with Google's culture (which is fine, I disagree with a lot of their culture, too, but probably about other bits).

Originally Posted by Snow-i

Firing that guy was not a good idea, as it's captured the headlines for 3 days straight.

The reaction was split: all of the IT-centric websites that I frequent welcomed the change, especially women.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

Really? It does?

Show me how this works for Registered Nurses. Infact, according to my quick google, just 9.1% of nurses are men.

Yes, the mechanism is the exact same: the innate bias to keep groups homogeneous, and if the majority of the group is female, then there will be a bias towards keeping it female.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

But this isn't backed by science. It's a narrative that attempts to use logic but fails to consider other possibilities, assigns causative factors to supposition (that people are only driven to hire based on homogeneity), and does not explain industries that don't experience a gender gap or why different industries have different gender gaps.

How do you know my opinion it isn't backed by science? I think my conjecture is apt, logical and coherent. And just because you disagree with it, you reject it and instead inject your own unscientific explanation?

But of course, it is just a conjecture, because just like the ex-Google, I didn't carefully construct a scientifically sound line of argumentation backed by data. But neither did the author. Plenty of real experts have taken a look at the flimsy veneer of rationalism and ripped it apart. I'm not an academic in the field, so I don't think I'm the person to make a scientifically sound argument. But I do have experience with the topic just like many other knowledge workers who work in a male-dominated field that is making strides to hire more women and minorities.

Even if you are not an expert, you can already see the myriad of problems with it, the supposedly strictly logical chain of arguments breaks down in so many places. The ex-Googler claims that women and men have certain traits on average, and he explains in the beginning that there are really distributions of traits. Google employees, especially the programmers, are not representative of the general population, just like pros in the WNBA are statistically taller than the population average. In the universities I have been to, women comprised about 30 % of math and comp sci students. (The actual numbers, of course, may fluctuate and depend on the department and the department's scientific profile.) Stanford's comp sci department, one of Google's sources of talent, reaches 30 %. So you would expect that roughly 30 % of people Google (and, let's not kid ourselves, the other tech giants) hire should be female. In fact, the ratio is smaller, and the number of women at each step shrinks — the gender gap pyramid.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

I mean great story and everything, but where's the data that proves this is actually what's causing the gender gap?

I mean, you can make stuff up about whatever you want - it applies universally because there are no bounds. It's ideology, pure and simple.

You are doing no better here, you are not just accusing me of ideology, but you are saying that I'm wrong. Which is fine — if you can back it up.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

So you're saying that changed why? If it was all women and everyone wants to be homogeneous, why did it flip to men?

I made a conjecture: it changed with the introduction of the personal computer when more boys got access to personal computers than women, when it went from being solely a professional tool to a hobby. If you have a better idea, shoot.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

Difference in innate interests and talents would be the sociological phenomenon.

I'm talking about the difference between nature and nurture. The fact that women already did dominate computer science for a period of time shows that they do have the innate abilities to be programmers, so much so that they used to be the majority. Men also used to dominate the medical profession, and now it's even. (I remember a line from Master's of Sex where one female patient was skeptical of a female gynecologist and said something along the lines “What do women know about down there?” I am butchering the quote.) 50, 70 years ago, we might have argued about whether women are suitable to become medical doctors, too.

But let's zoom out and get to something I find more interesting: It's easy to get lost in the details of the memo, and all sides have hyperventilated: people appalled by the blog post (I keep calling it a blog post, not out of disrespect or anything, I just don't think it is accurate to call it a memo, a manifesto or a screed; it feels like a blog post, rough around the edges) were exaggerating this guy's influence. I don't think he would have been fired if the thing hadn't gone viral (for better or worse) — or if the author just published it outside of the company and not distributed a link himself. Then there are sites like The Federalist or National Review which have largely inflated the quality of the blog post, as if it was truth condensed to 10 pages, an ironclad argument why Google is wrong and all those stupid leftists don't see it. I think that's equally dumb, and you know that they would have said the opposite if someone they consider a liberal leftie was fired from a job because of a similar deed. Few stick to their view as consistently as el chupacabra did in his post: if you are a company, you have the right to set the culture — even if you may disagree with it. Where I come from, employees have more protections than that, and I don't think people should be fired right away for something like that. If he had published it privately, I don't think he should have even been reprimanded for publishing it.

But even if the author would have been given a second chance, I don't think that would change the fact that he would have remained a member of an ideological minority at Google. What I find interesting is that his experience is very similar to other minorities (eg blacks), so he actually experienced first-hand the pressures that make it a less comfortable place for him to work there. Maintaining a homogeneous “Google” culture is what makes people want to work at Google, and often people who want to work for Google, do not want to work for Apple or Microsoft or Amazon. Chris Lattner, former Apple superstar (who has invented the most popular compiler and Apple's new programming language), worked for Tesla for about half a year and it didn't work out for cultural reasons. So it really seems as if the author was unhappy at Google and a lot of his peers did not feel comfortable working with someone like him. And I don't mean to single out this person's (self-identified as) conservative beliefs, but he didn't seem to have the people smarts to find a way to improve the situation. Perhaps he could have created a small community of “Conservatives at Google”, and tried to influence gender policies by getting engaged? It seems that the de-emphasis of empathy he seems to prefer (it's one of the proposed remedies) really did him in.

What I find most ironic about this whole discussion is that Google has not done a good job at hiring more women and minorities. So I really have to wonder why the ex-Googler really saw discrimination at work — even if it did discriminate against men, the effort wasn't very effective. For the most part, it seems like an imagined problem rather than a real one.

On this topic more generally, no one has found a great and satisfactory solution, neither from a philosophical nor from a practical point of view. I have worked in numerous countries and applied for jobs in even more. Depending on where you are, you have systems with voluntary quotas, politically mandated quotas, preference for women, and those where giving someone preference on the basis of gender, race, etc. is strictly forbidden. The thing that has worked best was to start with a broad base as early as possible and try and get the number of women across a threshold of ~30 %, because then the minority is large enough to be selfsustaining. That has worked in Swedish politics, for example. Ditto for school. In math education at school, putting more effort into teaching girls and getting them interested has the side benefit that also the boys' grades rise with them (you raise the water level, the boys get dragged along). [This is the result of a meta study, I am traveling right now, but I can give you a link.] And more women in the work force means that also men get to enjoy the benefits of better work-life balance and paternity leave.

That's not starting well (was pretty sure I was wasting my time but felt I needed to extend a hand, again).

You don't get to ban me from conversations for any reason at all but certainly not because you say I'm bigoted against bigots. Most decent folk are.

You're absolutely wrong, soberingly wrong. "Decent folks" aren't bigoted towards anyone, not even bigots. That's what makes them decent, they don't hate anyone. While they may choose not to associate with terrible people, they harbor no ill will towards them. As I've said before, hating someone is like personally drinking poison to get back at them, the only thing it does is harm you.

"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr

You're absolutely wrong, soberingly wrong. "Decent folks" aren't bigoted towards anyone, not even bigots. That's what makes them decent, they don't hate anyone. While they may choose not to associate with terrible people, they harbor no ill will towards them. As I've said before, hating someone is like personally drinking poison to get back at them, the only thing it does is harm you.

The problem is it is so incredibly easy to play the hate card at decent folk who are just calling out bullshit. It is also possible to hate an ideological position without necessarily hating the people that embrace this ideology. For example, I hate Chongo's and Badkosh's anti-science viewpoints because I find them incredibly backwards and abhorrent, but I don't hate them personally as people.

Actual hate often results in violence, and while there are obviously extreme left wing groups capable of violence, I hope we can agree that the vast majority of left-wingers are non-violent and don't act on actual hate. The same is true for the vast majority of right wingers, although they have very loud mouthpieces these days.

You mean the section where he lists stereotypes of men and women? Yes, I've read that one, too. Apart from “we should embrace our nature as men and women” I didn't see any real policy suggestions aimed at reducing the gap.

Ideology is always part and parcel of culture, it's just that in this case you disagree with Google's culture (which is fine, I disagree with a lot of their culture, too, but probably about other bits).

The reaction was split: all of the IT-centric websites that I frequent welcomed the change, especially women.

Yes, the mechanism is the exact same: the innate bias to keep groups homogeneous, and if the majority of the group is female, then there will be a bias towards keeping it female.

How do you know my opinion it isn't backed by science? I think my conjecture is apt, logical and coherent. And just because you disagree with it, you reject it and instead inject your own unscientific explanation?

But of course, it is just a conjecture, because just like the ex-Google, I didn't carefully construct a scientifically sound line of argumentation backed by data. But neither did the author. Plenty of real experts have taken a look at the flimsy veneer of rationalism and ripped it apart. I'm not an academic in the field, so I don't think I'm the person to make a scientifically sound argument. But I do have experience with the topic just like many other knowledge workers who work in a male-dominated field that is making strides to hire more women and minorities.

Even if you are not an expert, you can already see the myriad of problems with it, the supposedly strictly logical chain of arguments breaks down in so many places. The ex-Googler claims that women and men have certain traits on average, and he explains in the beginning that there are really distributions of traits. Google employees, especially the programmers, are not representative of the general population, just like pros in the WNBA are statistically taller than the population average. In the universities I have been to, women comprised about 30 % of math and comp sci students. (The actual numbers, of course, may fluctuate and depend on the department and the department's scientific profile.) Stanford's comp sci department, one of Google's sources of talent, reaches 30 %. So you would expect that roughly 30 % of people Google (and, let's not kid ourselves, the other tech giants) hire should be female. In fact, the ratio is smaller, and the number of women at each step shrinks — the gender gap pyramid.

You are doing no better here, you are not just accusing me of ideology, but you are saying that I'm wrong. Which is fine — if you can back it up.

I made a conjecture: it changed with the introduction of the personal computer when more boys got access to personal computers than women, when it went from being solely a professional tool to a hobby. If you have a better idea, shoot.

I'm talking about the difference between nature and nurture. The fact that women already did dominate computer science for a period of time shows that they do have the innate abilities to be programmers, so much so that they used to be the majority. Men also used to dominate the medical profession, and now it's even. (I remember a line from Master's of Sex where one female patient was skeptical of a female gynecologist and said something along the lines “What do women know about down there?” I am butchering the quote.) 50, 70 years ago, we might have argued about whether women are suitable to become medical doctors, too.

But let's zoom out and get to something I find more interesting: It's easy to get lost in the details of the memo, and all sides have hyperventilated: people appalled by the blog post (I keep calling it a blog post, not out of disrespect or anything, I just don't think it is accurate to call it a memo, a manifesto or a screed; it feels like a blog post, rough around the edges) were exaggerating this guy's influence. I don't think he would have been fired if the thing hadn't gone viral (for better or worse) — or if the author just published it outside of the company and not distributed a link himself. Then there are sites like The Federalist or National Review which have largely inflated the quality of the blog post, as if it was truth condensed to 10 pages, an ironclad argument why Google is wrong and all those stupid leftists don't see it. I think that's equally dumb, and you know that they would have said the opposite if someone they consider a liberal leftie was fired from a job because of a similar deed. Few stick to their view as consistently as el chupacabra did in his post: if you are a company, you have the right to set the culture — even if you may disagree with it. Where I come from, employees have more protections than that, and I don't think people should be fired right away for something like that. If he had published it privately, I don't think he should have even been reprimanded for publishing it.

But even if the author would have been given a second chance, I don't think that would change the fact that he would have remained a member of an ideological minority at Google. What I find interesting is that his experience is very similar to other minorities (eg blacks), so he actually experienced first-hand the pressures that make it a less comfortable place for him to work there. Maintaining a homogeneous “Google” culture is what makes people want to work at Google, and often people who want to work for Google, do not want to work for Apple or Microsoft or Amazon. Chris Lattner, former Apple superstar (who has invented the most popular compiler and Apple's new programming language), worked for Tesla for about half a year and it didn't work out for cultural reasons. So it really seems as if the author was unhappy at Google and a lot of his peers did not feel comfortable working with someone like him. And I don't mean to single out this person's (self-identified as) conservative beliefs, but he didn't seem to have the people smarts to find a way to improve the situation. Perhaps he could have created a small community of “Conservatives at Google”, and tried to influence gender policies by getting engaged? It seems that the de-emphasis of empathy he seems to prefer (it's one of the proposed remedies) really did him in.

What I find most ironic about this whole discussion is that Google has not done a good job at hiring more women and minorities. So I really have to wonder why the ex-Googler really saw discrimination at work — even if it did discriminate against men, the effort wasn't very effective. For the most part, it seems like an imagined problem rather than a real one.

On this topic more generally, no one has found a great and satisfactory solution, neither from a philosophical nor from a practical point of view. I have worked in numerous countries and applied for jobs in even more. Depending on where you are, you have systems with voluntary quotas, politically mandated quotas, preference for women, and those where giving someone preference on the basis of gender, race, etc. is strictly forbidden. The thing that has worked best was to start with a broad base as early as possible and try and get the number of women across a threshold of ~30 %, because then the minority is large enough to be selfsustaining. That has worked in Swedish politics, for example. Ditto for school. In math education at school, putting more effort into teaching girls and getting them interested has the side benefit that also the boys' grades rise with them (you raise the water level, the boys get dragged along). [This is the result of a meta study, I am traveling right now, but I can give you a link.] And more women in the work force means that also men get to enjoy the benefits of better work-life balance and paternity leave.

Oreo - give me a day or two with this - super busy this weekend and I want to make sure I give you the time this post deserves.

You're absolutely wrong, soberingly wrong. "Decent folks" aren't bigoted towards anyone, not even bigots. That's what makes them decent, they don't hate anyone. While they may choose not to associate with terrible people, they harbor no ill will towards them. As I've said before, hating someone is like personally drinking poison to get back at them, the only thing it does is harm you.

Decent folks speak out against the bigots. Whether its verbal condemnation or attending protests they don't sit back and leave the mindless, destructive hatred unchallenged. They certainly don't settle for "not hanging out with the bigots".

I don't know whether you have to call it ill will or not but decent folks don't stand idly by and leave bigots to make or influence policy. They certainly don't vote for them in order that they can afford to go to the movies more often like they used to. Like Besson said, they hate the bigotry itself. When someone is actively participating in damaging your community, your city, state or country. Engaging in oppression and trying deliberately to undermine and upset other people for no good reason other than blind, stupid hate, you should absolutely bear them some ill will. Its not like they are showing any respect, why do they deserve it?

The right has deliberately exhausted all other options. They co-operate or collaborate, even when they agree with what you're doing. They don't listen to reason, think things through or use common sense. They flout the most basic standards of decency and fairness and establish endless hypocritical double standards and they hide the worst of themselves behind layers of disingenuous bullshit. You can't work with them or reason with them and its not about understanding them or empathising with them. They certainly make no effort to do that after all. What else can you do but yell at them? Its no wonder people are doing even worse than that. Its probably what they want, like maybe people will feel sorry for them.

We've all let you get away with it for years because you're very careful about exactly what you do and don't say, and even deny it when accused but the evidence has mounted up. You consistently side with the cops when they shoot unarmed black kids, you rail endlessly against Antifa, BLM, the extreme left, feminists, Obama, Democrats, snowflakes, millennials and Social Justice Warriors while having little or nothing in the way of complaints about murderous cops, the alt-right, right wing corruption, Republicans in general, and now you're even trying to make out like white supremacists with torches copying the behaviour of ISIS are only as bad as the handfuls of lefties who showed up to protest against them.

You have absolutely zero licence left to say what does and doesn't make 'decent folks'.

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....

He wants Republicans stripped of their right to vote and makes gross, defamatory generalizations regarding them (based solely on their politics), when he's never even met the people whom he excoriates. You claim you don't see it? Then I'm afraid you don't want to see it. Bah, I've talked enough about him, there's certainly no need for me to give him more attention.

"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr

Thanks Bess, apparently only CTP is allowed to say things and not have people interpret anything beyond it while he extrapolates whatever he wants.

I said I hated Trump. When I see his face or hear the latest moronic thing he said or did, it puts a frown on my face for five minutes. It doesn't consume me, it doesn't ruin my day and the stress isn't going to give me a heart attack any sooner. I hate so much about him I'm prepared to say I hate him. Before he was on TV, I had a low opinion of him as a disgusting, tasteless old pervert. On The Apprentice I actually kinda liked him for a bit. As soon as he stops being in a position to do real damage, or even just stops doing real damage, I'll dislike him less again. He'll probably still be a shitty human being from now until the day he dies but if he goes away and stops harassing women and girls then I won't need to care anymore.

I have never once seriously called for violence and if I have been forgiving of it, its no worse than CTP when he defends out of control cops or justifies white supremacy marchers. The lefties are knocking over trashcans, not shooting kids or driving cars into crowds like followers of ISIS.

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....

He wants Republicans stripped of their right to vote and makes gross, defamatory generalizations regarding them (based solely on their politics), when he's never even met the people whom he excoriates. You claim you don't see it? Then I'm afraid you don't want to see it. Bah, I've talked enough about him, there's certainly no need for me to give him more attention.

I admit I skim read a lot of your conversations with him so I might have missed some things, but I'm not really sure what you are drawing from here...

If you vote for Trump or any Republican, you condone what the worst of them stand for. If thats a generalisation, its a totally fair one.

I agree with this, but I'm not sure that this is a very practical thing to say.

There are a lot of one or two issue voters out there. Chongo will tell you if I'm misrepresenting him, but I recall him saying that he voted for Trump largely because of abortion and maybe one or two other issues. For some people it's not so much that they approve of every single policy position, but that some are just so massively important to them that they are willing to overlook all other warts to get what they want.

I personally think this is a really dumb way to vote, but it happens. I'm not sure if this is a left/right or just a human thing...

I agree with this, but I'm not sure that this is a very practical thing to say.

There are a lot of one or two issue voters out there. Chongo will tell you if I'm misrepresenting him, but I recall him saying that he voted for Trump largely because of abortion and maybe one or two other issues. For some people it's not so much that they approve of every single policy position, but that some are just so massively important to them that they are willing to overlook all other warts to get what they want.

I personally think this is a really dumb way to vote, but it happens. I'm not sure if this is a left/right or just a human thing...

If something is important to you, I don't have a problem with single issue voting. Personally I feel like being 100% against abortion is not an issue you should be voting for but rather one you shouldn't overlook voting against but I understand its a religious thing and I suspect that Chongo may not feel he has much of a choice in many ways.
I think a lot of it is simply left/right. Way more than people are willing to admit, because its a crappy reason.

If you overlook poor environmental policy in favour of lower taxes for yourself, its not something I'm going to pat you on the back for but I can understand it. I won't condemn you for it. But we are talking about the policies and ideals that caused the last world war. You can argue its impractical to condemn German Nazi voters but it had to be done even taking into account the eventual cost. Those "patriots" and wannabe heroes who voted for Trump because he sounded 'authentic' (like an authentic douchebag maybe but whatever) and in doing so overlooked the race hate, the environmental destruction, the dismantling of public education etc etc. I feel like its voting for a 1% tax cut knowing that your neighbour will be dragged into the street and shot as a consequence. I exaggerate, but you are very much selling out a lot of people for your own gain or your own personal beliefs.
I know the Pope isn't fond of Trump, I don't think he has officially said that Trump is worse than abortion. I wish he would have before the election.

Years of internet arguments invoking WW2 comparisons have deprived them of all their power to warn and now even though we see it starting to happen before our eyes, people refuse to believe it can be true. Ironically its the same people that regularly ask us to support them having costly rights in case of an event that hasn't happened for over two centuries who are refusing to see the second round of an event that only happened 80 years ago and they don't even have to give up any rights to stop it, just a few asshole politicians they claim to be mostly sick of anyway.

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....

Please let it go, you're being a troll. I don't really care how you have me sized up.

I'll make my arguments how I see fit. You're free to not care - and I'm free to call out your hypocrisy for the others to see, lest they are fooled for a second you might be credible when you identify your arguments as unbiased. You opened the door.

Calling you out for your obvious flaw in thinking is not trolling you. Please check your definitions.

You can paint all republicans as the scourge of earth and Satan incarnate - you'll keep getting the same extra attention to your arguments and where they fall apart.

You mean the section where he lists stereotypes of men and women? Yes, I've read that one, too. Apart from “we should embrace our nature as men and women” I didn't see any real policy suggestions aimed at reducing the gap.

Are statistical trends embedded in empirical data stereotypes? I think this is more the point he is trying to make. We're different, men and women.

Ideology is always part and parcel of culture, it's just that in this case you disagree with Google's culture (which is fine, I disagree with a lot of their culture, too, but probably about other bits).

Ehh i don't buy that.

Ideology may be embedded into culture, but Google's role as a business demands profit and provide livelihoods to those qualified, not to reflect our culture.

The reaction was split: all of the IT-centric websites that I frequent welcomed the change, especially women.

I am not surprised that you visited websites that affirmed your reaction to it.

IT is not inherently different from any other industry - you do not have to be part of IT to have special insight towards company policy around gender gaps.

Yes, the mechanism is the exact same: the innate bias to keep groups homogeneous, and if the majority of the group is female, then there will be a bias towards keeping it female.

But that does not explain what drives it to be female or male in the first place. You mentioned a flip, but strictly under your regime that would be impossible.

How do you know my opinion it isn't backed by science?

You are free to provide some - until then your argument is incomplete. The guy in the memo did cite several studies that supported his claims, at least to a degree. More science needed.

I think my conjecture is apt, logical and coherent.

But it's still conjecture, and does not have a basis in the reality of what's happening lacking empirical data to support it.

And just because you disagree with it, you reject it and instead inject your own unscientific explanation?

I did not provide an explanation. I advocated basing a policy around empirical data, because it might just so happen that an answer lies within that. Ideology is blind to science. Science is, properly done, impervious to ideology.

But of course, it is just a conjecture, because just like the ex-Google, I didn't carefully construct a scientifically sound line of argumentation backed by data. But neither did the author.

The problem is that Google didn't construct a scientifically sound line of argumentation backed by data either.

This guy pointed that out, and asked for us to change that aspect of the discussion.

Plenty of real experts have taken a look at the flimsy veneer of rationalism and ripped it apart.

They too, were making a conjecture.

I'm not an academic in the field, so I don't think I'm the person to make a scientifically sound argument. But I do have experience with the topic just like many other knowledge workers who work in a male-dominated field that is making strides to hire more women and minorities.

I don't expect you to make that argument on your own. I don't think I'm that person either. But I hope you and I can agree that somebody should maybe think about making that scientifically sound argument?

Even if you are not an expert, you can already see the myriad of problems with it, the supposedly strictly logical chain of arguments breaks down in so many places. The ex-Googler claims that women and men have certain traits on average, and he explains in the beginning that there are really distributions of traits.

I think he called for more science and offered a few ramblings of other potential explanations. I'm not sure you grasped what exactly he was trying to support by offering those scenarios. His whole thing was - lets take a look at this together, and get some experts to help us make a policy that is scientifically backed and scientifically sound.

You cannot expect that men and women are identical in every regard, right? Therefore, without evidence to the contrary, it stands that where they are not identical could manifest in statistical distributions throughout our society, including employment.

I agree he was not graceful at all. He got a reaction for sure, however.

Google employees, especially the programmers, are not representative of the general population, just like pros in the WNBA are statistically taller than the population average. In the universities I have been to, women comprised about 30 % of math and comp sci students.

Which is a great reason why the distribution of employment genders may not be representative of the ~50/50 split of the general population. Right? I mean you're saying it yourself. Google is different than the general population. How? What exactly are those differences? How does that impact the gender gap?

(The actual numbers, of course, may fluctuate and depend on the department and the department's scientific profile.) Stanford's comp sci department, one of Google's sources of talent, reaches 30 %. So you would expect that roughly 30 % of people Google (and, let's not kid ourselves, the other tech giants) hire should be female. In fact, the ratio is smaller, and the number of women at each step shrinks — the gender gap pyramid.

So, because it's not 30% sexism is the only reasonable response?

You haven't finished the science! Why stop there?

Why does that occur?

You're skipping a crucial step to get to sexism.

You are doing no better here, you are not just accusing me of ideology, but you are saying that I'm wrong. Which is fine — if you can back it up.

I am saying that you are incorrect in positing that ideology is a suitable replacement for science.

I made a conjecture: it changed with the introduction of the personal computer when more boys got access to personal computers than women, when it went from being solely a professional tool to a hobby. If you have a better idea, shoot.

My better idea is not to base our policy around the gender gap on anecdotal experiences.

I'm talking about the difference between nature and nurture. The fact that women already did dominate computer science for a period of time shows that they do have the innate abilities to be programmers, so much so that they used to be the majority.

But if seeking homogeneity is the only driving factor of the male/female distribution, there is no possible way under that rationality that it ever could have flipped.

There must be other factors at play. Sexism could be one, there could be others. Right?

Men also used to dominate the medical profession, and now it's even. (I remember a line from Master's of Sex where one female patient was skeptical of a female gynecologist and said something along the lines “What do women know about down there?” I am butchering the quote.) 50, 70 years ago, we might have argued about whether women are suitable to become medical doctors, too.

But none of that explains why. We need the why to figure out what the baseline is.

But let's zoom out and get to something I find more interesting: It's easy to get lost in the details of the memo, and all sides have hyperventilated: people appalled by the blog post (I keep calling it a blog post, not out of disrespect or anything, I just don't think it is accurate to call it a memo, a manifesto or a screed; it feels like a blog post, rough around the edges) were exaggerating this guy's influence.

Precisely. I likened it to a forum post a bit earlier in the thread .

I don't think he would have been fired if the thing hadn't gone viral (for better or worse) — or if the author just published it outside of the company and not distributed a link himself. Then there are sites like The Federalist or National Review which have largely inflated the quality of the blog post, as if it was truth condensed to 10 pages, an ironclad argument why Google is wrong and all those stupid leftists don't see it. I think that's equally dumb, and you know that they would have said the opposite if someone they consider a liberal leftie was fired from a job because of a similar deed. Few stick to their view as consistently as el chupacabra did in his post: if you are a company, you have the right to set the culture — even if you may disagree with it. Where I come from, employees have more protections than that, and I don't think people should be fired right away for something like that. If he had published it privately, I don't think he should have even been reprimanded for publishing it.

I agree with all of that. Well said.

But even if the author would have been given a second chance, I don't think that would change the fact that he would have remained a member of an ideological minority at Google.

Is this a bad thing? I mean, we should set up an environment where minorities are treated equally along the majority, right?

What I find interesting is that his experience is very similar to other minorities (eg blacks), so he actually experienced first-hand the pressures that make it a less comfortable place for him to work there. Maintaining a homogeneous “Google” culture is what makes people want to work at Google, and often people who want to work for Google, do not want to work for Apple or Microsoft or Amazon. Chris Lattner, former Apple superstar (who has invented the most popular compiler and Apple's new programming language), worked for Tesla for about half a year and it didn't work out for cultural reasons. So it really seems as if the author was unhappy at Google and a lot of his peers did not feel comfortable working with someone like him. And I don't mean to single out this person's (self-identified as) conservative beliefs, but he didn't seem to have the people smarts to find a way to improve the situation. Perhaps he could have created a small community of “Conservatives at Google”, and tried to influence gender policies by getting engaged? It seems that the de-emphasis of empathy he seems to prefer (it's one of the proposed remedies) really did him in.

What happened to tolerance and diversity? Those are not values worth pursuing unless you're a preferred kind of minority, or conforming ideologically? I mean, really? That's preaching intolerance, and justifying it for those around him. This guys point exactly.

What I find most ironic about this whole discussion is that Google has not done a good job at hiring more women and minorities. So I really have to wonder why the ex-Googler really saw discrimination at work — even if it did discriminate against men, the effort wasn't very effective. For the most part, it seems like an imagined problem rather than a real one.

That was part of this guys point - the way it's being done isn't even helping - probably because it's not rooted in science.

On this topic more generally, no one has found a great and satisfactory solution, neither from a philosophical nor from a practical point of view. I have worked in numerous countries and applied for jobs in even more. Depending on where you are, you have systems with voluntary quotas, politically mandated quotas, preference for women, and those where giving someone preference on the basis of gender, race, etc. is strictly forbidden. The thing that has worked best was to start with a broad base as early as possible and try and get the number of women across a threshold of ~30 %, because then the minority is large enough to be self-sustaining.

Where does 30% come from? How do we know that's the number we should be targeting?

That has worked in Swedish politics, for example. Ditto for school. In math education at school, putting more effort into teaching girls and getting them interested has the side benefit that also the boys' grades rise with them (you raise the water level, the boys get dragged along). [This is the result of a meta study, I am traveling right now, but I can give you a link.] And more women in the work force means that also men get to enjoy the benefits of better work-life balance and paternity leave.

Agreed - more women in the workplace is great. I like women.

That said, ideology isn't a replacement for science in figuring out how to accomplish our goals with the gender gap. This is memo guy's point that I argue for.

I'll make my arguments how I see fit. You're free to not care - and I'm free to call out your hypocrisy for the others to see, lest they are fooled for a second you might be credible when you identify your arguments as unbiased. You opened the door.

Calling you out for your obvious flaw in thinking is not trolling you. Please check your definitions.

You can paint all republicans as the scourge of earth and Satan incarnate - you'll keep getting the same extra attention to your arguments and where they fall apart.

If you really want to do this then, can you not make up stuff about what I've said? I guess my having a fanboy is entertaining to some people, but you should know that I know how to reach Abe.

What I find most ironic about this whole discussion is that Google has not done a good job at hiring more women and minorities.

This is direct evidence that the ideological approach to discrimination does not work. Do you suggest we leave in place that regime and expect different results?

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."

And thus, I have proven the left insane

If conservatives are not encouraged to work in Google's culture, what about women conservatives? There's untold millions of women that are discriminated against in some form against working for Google right there.

If you really want to do this then, can you not make up stuff about what I've said? I guess my having a fanboy is entertaining to some people, but you should know that I know how to reach Abe.

Yawn.

Originally Posted by besson3c

2) Why does this have to be a partisan thing? You seem to value non-partisan thought processes

Originally Posted by besson3c

How is comparing Trump's narcism to Kim Jun Un's a partisan argument?

Either way, can you stop, please stahp, crapping up my thread with your republican/democrat/fanboy ramblings? If I wanted to read a bunch of ignorant crap I'd just go on Facebook. I'm trying to have a discussion with those capable of an actual intellectual conversation.

@Snow-i
Let me first respond to the second half, since I think this is the more interesting bit of the discussion.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

Is this a bad thing? I mean, we should set up an environment where minorities are treated equally along the majority, right?

I think there are two different things: one concerns company policy and the other is about whether you are discriminated against in the job. It is completely legitimate for a company to enforce best practices, at least officially. So if making the workplace more comfortable for you to work in means having to change such fundamental policies, I don't think that's reasonable to expect.

The second point concerns whether your private political beliefs should have an impact on your ability to do your job. Of course not! If you are a programmer and you treat your colleagues with respect, then none of this should matter. But as far as I understand, the ex-Googler did not complain about that.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

What happened to tolerance and diversity? Those are not values worth pursuing unless you're a preferred kind of minority, or conforming ideologically? I mean, really? That's preaching intolerance, and justifying it for those around him.

Tolerance is not acceptance, and the distinction is important. If you feel lonely, because people who think like you are few and far between, then not being discriminated against means very little. If co-workers strongly reject some of your ideas, then they can tolerate you, but you cannot force them to accept you. Nor will it stop rubbing you that company policies tend to be opposed to your ideas, and that the majority of your colleagues are strongly in favor of that. As I wrote just above, the crucial distinction for me is whether you are being discriminated against just for holding certain political (or other) opinions that have no bearing on your performance.

Let's switch industries for a second: the military and law enforcement probably have a Republican tilt. I don't think you would be surprised if a study found that social workers lean Democratic. Fire fighters are probably more open to working in groups than programmers, while a small dairy farmer might be opposed to regulations that were made for large dairy farms owned by a conglomerate. You can surely come up with a few other examples. The fact that any of these groups have a bent to them need not inherently be good or bad, and in some cases the reason is linked to the job itself. If you are an introvert who likes to stick by yourself, then becoming a programmer is probably a better fit than becoming a fire fighter or a marine.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

That was part of this guys point - the way it's being done isn't even helping - probably because it's not rooted in science.

I don't want to get lost in the weeds, but you assume that this guys' point was rooted in science, and in better science than Google. That's a dangerous assumption for a blog post that was apparently written on just a flight — it's not (and given its length and purported scope) and cannot be a scientifically rigorous work. On the other hand, you assume that Google's stance is not rooted in science, and that is quite likely also false. I'm quite sure that its diversity policies are not only based on the expertise of social scientists, psychologists, people with MAs in business (many people in HR, including my sister, have business degrees) and lawyers. That doesn't mean that their approach is state-of-the-art or works better than others, all I am saying is that a lot of people have spent a lot of time coming up with it.

Rather than arguing whether this guy is right, let me change the slant here, and that is whether Google (and other companies) have done a good job attracting more women. The answer is evident. But I don't think anyone has found the golden bullet. I listed a few approaches I have experience with, some of them are diametrically opposed even though they all share the same goal. Plus, big companies have other incentives that have nothing to do with the actual success of programs. If you've worked in a large organization, I'm sure you had had to endure compliance training that was seemingly designed by lawyers to absolve the organization of any legal responsibility. I have yet to come across compliance training that was actually useful. One training I have to complete yearly is on not wasting grant money, and I have to learn how to ethically handle lab animals and human test subjects — I'm a mathematical physicist, there is a 0 chance I will ever get in contact with that. But you know how it goes, someone in the administration decided (also for their convenience) that medical doctors and physicists have to take the same compliance training. Completing compliance training, though, practically means nothing, you don't become an ethical (or unethical) person because of training. But now they can say “you've been told!”

To a certain degree diversity can feel like that, universities in the UK are strongly motivated to get diversity certifications to increase their chances to get grants. That doesn't mean the staff really believes in it, though, and that could be a key reason in a given organization why it has not been very successful. If you take the cynical point of view, you can say that Google's efforts to diversity are mostly a reaction to the legal trouble they are in — they are under investigation by the Department of Labor for not giving equal opportunities and wages to women, but not something they truly believe in. So just from the perspective of Google's legal department, “Google has to do something, and that something better be documented.”

Originally Posted by Snow-i

Where does 30% come from? How do we know that's the number we should be targeting?

The idea is that 30 % is the critical mass: then women are involved in all levels of decision making because especially in smaller groups, you might have no women at all. If 10 % are women, then it is quite likely that in a group of 7 you have no women at all (0.9^7≈ 48 %) while at 30 % you have only a 0,7^7 ≈ 17 % probability. We could haggle about the exact number (25 % vs. 30 % vs. 35 %), but it makes sense that you have a threshold.

My female colleagues tell me that this makes the biggest difference, being visible and being part of the discussion really changes things for them. That includes implicit biases such as “husband and wife publish together, so the husband did the majority of the work”* to situations where men might be disadvantaged. Fortunately, many men are receptive to these perspectives, once they hear the arguments.

* No, I'm not making this up, I heard this from a friend who was on a hiring committee.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

Agreed - more women in the workplace is great. I like women.

That said, ideology isn't a replacement for science in figuring out how to accomplish our goals with the gender gap. This is memo guy's point that I argue for.

Honestly, what rubs me the wrong way about the blog post the most isn't so much what he purports about women, but what he statistically claims to be true about men in the industry. A lot of the recommendations he made on the last page felt revealing about who the author is and what kind of environment he prefers — that he essentially made his perspective the mean from which to judge. From someone who knows something about statistics, the weakness of this part of the argument really stood out to me.

I find his call for less empathy appalling, I don't want to work in such an environment. And I would like more cooperation (I feel like an extroverted introvert and just working by myself makes me feel quite lonely), especially finding good ways to make introverts connect better. Ditto for a better work-life balance, it's not as if I am in favor of that because my wife wants to spend more time with me. And in my experience, a lot of these changes are side benefits from trying to get more women in the work force. For that reason alone, I would really like to work with many more women.

Let me finish by saying that because of the scarcity of women I was initially quite insecure about how to handle women in the work place. Talking to women was something I did in my private life, and not knowing what boundaries to set initially made me feel uncomfortable. But you know what, I got used to it, and only now in Japan do I re-discover how awkward people with little experience with women can behave around them.

This is direct evidence that the ideological approach to discrimination does not work. Do you suggest we leave in place that regime and expect different results?

First of all, I am adamant that you cannot separate ideology from culture. Secondly, while differences in how to implement diversity programs can be based on certain premises (call it ideology if you wish), but their success can be judged impartially. I am very interested in the subject and have been for several years now, because it affects me directly. There are certain countries where I have a harder time getting hired, for example. On the other hand, I would like to contribute to making the place I work in a friendly place for people who are different from me.

However, the fact that current diversity policies are inadequate is very different from saying that this document is a worthwhile contribution to the discussion — I don't think it is. As I said before, part of the overblown reaction was that people took it too seriously in terms of impact and quality.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

If conservatives are not encouraged to work in Google's culture, what about women conservatives? There's untold millions of women that are discriminated against in some form against working for Google right there.

Well, what about conservatives in general? Perhaps they are simply not suited to revolutionize the world through new innovations in soft- and hardware? There must be a reason why all these silicon valley companies are dominated by liberals, perhaps the brains of conservatives aren't wired right for this kind of work

Perhaps having more women at Google will also improve the climate for people who are of another political persuasion.

Are statistical trends embedded in empirical data stereotypes? I think this is more the point he is trying to make. We're different, men and women.

There are four crucial points that the ex-Googler did not adequately take into account:

(1) Which of those difference are due to genetics or, say, hormone levels during pregnancy, and which are due to socialization? Studies on this are very, very tricky.

(2) The group “programmers at Google” is a highly selected subset of the general population, so even if it is true in the general population that, say, women preferred more collaboration and men less empathy, that still need not be true for the men and women who work for Google. The author makes zero effort to investigate this quantitatively, and instead makes inferences from the general population.

(3) The ex-Googler wrote the document from his perspective, a single data point and very different from the average. Is it really true that the majority of men would prefer a workplace with less empathy and less cooperation?

(4) You should not design systems for averages, distributions matter. The ex-Googler admits in the beginning that distributions of characteristics probably have a large overlap. Suppose that is true for the traits that are relevant for programmers, then there should be a very large contingent of men that also want more collaboration in their job. (I know male programmers that changed job because of that.) So you would be more attractive to not just a huge swath of women, but also a very large number of men if you allowed for, say, more collaboration or more empathy.

Perhaps my education in this area isn't average (I have a PhD in math), but to people in the subfields of social sciences, psychology and so forth, these points must be obvious red flags with these arguments.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

Ehh i don't buy that.

Ideology may be embedded into culture, but Google's role as a business demands profit and provide livelihoods to those qualified, not to reflect our culture.

By that token, Google's primary concern should be about making money — and they are doing very well. Companies, especially those in which the founders have a very active role in, are not just money making machines. I think it's a mistake to view human endeavors solely through that lens.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

I am not surprised that you visited websites that affirmed your reaction to it.

I have also read opinion pieces on National Review, skimmed one at the Federalist and listened to two podcasts on that subject (one by Vox, the other by National Review). I'm not solely getting my information from one source that affirms my positions.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

But that does not explain what drives it to be female or male in the first place. You mentioned a flip, but strictly under your regime that would be impossible.

There aren't single reasons for these things. During WW2 women frequently took on “male” jobs, e. g. as factory workers, pilots or mechanics, and that quickly disappeared again after WW2.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

You are free to provide some - until then your argument is incomplete. The guy in the memo did cite several studies that supported his claims, at least to a degree. More science needed.

I freely admit that I wasn't providing links to scientific studies, but you have to understand that I am a scientist (in a different field), so if you ask me to make a scientific argument, the burden for me is very high. That's also how I know how to spot a badly researched piece from a mile away, even if it isn't in my field. The ex-Googler gave at most one citation per argument and at no point had a critical discussion of his own arguments. Just citing a single study that affirms your point of view is quite simple, I could do that in a heart beat. But I wouldn't be honest science.

But it's still conjecture, and does not have a basis in the reality of what's happening lacking empirical data to support it.

But my point was that I have provided as much data to support my conjecture as the ex-Googler did, yet you react to both very differently. One affirms your pre-existing beliefs while the other doesn't. (And you could accuse me, justly, of having done the same.) However, if we want to have this discussion on a scientific level, I don't think this is something an hour of Google and two hours of reading can do. I'd have to be an expert on the field, and I am not.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

I did not provide an explanation. I advocated basing a policy around empirical data, because it might just so happen that an answer lies within that. Ideology is blind to science. Science is, properly done, impervious to ideology.

You claimed, though, that the blog post was based on science and Google's position on ideology — that's a claim you have to back up. And at least the first statement is false: a shoddily written blog post doesn't cut it as a scientific piece of writing.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

The problem is that Google didn't construct a scientifically sound line of argumentation backed by data either.

How do you know that?
It's not as if Google will make its reasoning public and writes it up in an accessible form.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

They too, were making a conjecture.

No, that is not a conjecture: you can arrive at the conclusion that this piece does not satisfy scientific standards without making any conjectures of your own. Again, that doesn't the ex-Googler is wrong or right, it just means that he didn't include sufficient evidence, discussed counter arguments and followed other scientific best practices. To someone who does scientific writing for a living, this is obvious, even if you are not an expert in the field.

The step from arguing on a forum (be it within Google or here at good-old MacNN) to actual science is huge.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

I don't expect you to make that argument on your own. I don't think I'm that person either. But I hope you and I can agree that somebody should maybe think about making that scientifically sound argument?

People already are, and I have discussed this issue (as a relative layman) on many occasions. One friend of mine is a board member of the women's union of the International Mathematical Union (the international body representing mathematicians). Even if you are involved in this professionally, translating advances in scientific understanding into corporate policy is extremely hard. And best practices guides to individuals non-existent. People in HR have to deal with this constantly (my sister is an HR manager), and diversity management is an established field. I think it is naïve to think that companies haven't thought about it. (A lot of companies' best practices are out of date, though. That is often determined by the age of the person in charge of hiring decisions.)

Originally Posted by Snow-i

Which is a great reason why the distribution of employment genders may not be representative of the ~50/50 split of the general population. Right? I mean you're saying it yourself. Google is different than the general population. How? What exactly are those differences? How does that impact the gender gap?

Only Google may have access to at the very best some these statistics, and I am not aware that Google made those public. My criticism of the ex-Googler in this regard is that he made these claims without knowing these statistics. He gave “typical” characteristics of male and female Googlers, and the only data source I can come up with is located on his backside. That's why it is dangerous to interpret this piece as being scientific.

Because on that level of generality most™ people would agree with you: there are differences between men and women. There is, unsurprisingly, even a branch of feminism dedicated to this subject who criticize what they perceive to be pressure for women to become more like men in order to participate more in the work force. (Please don't get side tracked ) But if you want to make that general statement scientifically rigorous, then we have to quantify how, by how much, etc. while controlling all those pesky variables that would make statistical studies invalid.

So if you take this blog post on the level of “men surely are different from women”, then I have no objection to discussing it non-scientifically, but this is not how it is portrayed by many people who are in support of it.

Either way, can you stop, please stahp, crapping up my thread with your republican/democrat/fanboy ramblings? If I wanted to read a bunch of ignorant trash I'd just go on Facebook. I'm trying to have a discussion with those capable of an actual intellectual conversation.

One of the reasons why I called off this particular thread was because you distort things so much that my brain hurts with your choice of words and/or conclusions, and I have difficulty telling when you should be taken literally and when you are expressing emotion.

One of the reasons why I called off this particular thread was because you distort things so much that my brain hurts with your choice of words and/or conclusions, and I have difficulty telling when you should be taken literally and when you are expressing emotion.

Just saying, since you decided to bring me up.

I apologize if my style is not fully within your capacity to process/understand. I can try to make it easier for you to understand in the future. I'm not responding to the reference to the NK thread - we can leave that there, I've made my point and no more rehashing is going to help you understand if you don't get it by now. Just do me a favor and try to contemplate in the future how you come across, regardless of your intentions.

(3) The ex-Googler wrote the document from his perspective, a single data point and very different from the average. Is it really true that the majority of men would prefer a workplace with less empathy and less cooperation?

I am of course but a single data point.

I should also mention the following raises my feminist hackles, but I'm not going to pretend.

I find women I'm attracted to in the workplace to be a distraction from Getting Shit Done.

Single data points do matter on a small level where you have to deal with individuals rather than statistics.

Originally Posted by subego

I find women I'm attracted to in the workplace to be a distraction from Getting Shit Done.

You get used to that, in most circumstances industries are more mixed, and professional and romantic tend to get more intertwined (e. g. in hospitals). I think it's just due to lack of experience of having to deal with that. I had to learn that, too. A lot of it for me has to do with equating “being nice” with “giving signals that one person is attracted to the other”. You'll get used to it, because being distracted is absolutely due to your reaction to a woman, not due to that woman.

Here in Japan the separation of genders is more strict, I feel that my approach is more unusual. Most professors have a very distanced relation to their (group's) secretary while mine is very cordial while professional. I find that having a good professional relation reduces mental friction for both sides. Especially in the beginning, it was very important for me to consult my wife on this (not because I'm worried that she might think something is going on, but simply as an expert on Japanese professional life). So when I bring leftover cake, I make a point of saying it's my wife's cake (which is true, she loves to bake while I love to cook).

I just did a recording with a woman who wore tasteful yet revealing clothing.

I have better things to use my energy on than forcing myself not to look, so what I did is cut my interactions with her to a minimum.

I don't wanna sound like a complete jerk, but that's your problem which you can solve by growing more mature in this department. This is one of the ways in which women are held back. It's good that you are honest and aware of it, because that is how you start making things better — for yourself and your co-worker.

There's a cute girl who works for a certain manufacturer who comes by the shop often, always in sprayed-on Versace jeans, with her blouse unbuttoned 2/3rds of the way down, sans bra (and she has an ample bosom). She always makes a point to lean over my shoulder while I look through their new catalogues, bounces up and down excitedly when she talks. What bothers me most is you can see the indent from her wedding ring on her finger, I imagine she stows it before walking in. She drives a new Porsche Cayenne and carries a $3000 tote, she isn't "held back", she's the aggressor.

"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr

What bothers me most is you can see the indent from her wedding ring on her finger, I imagine she stows it before walking in. She drives a new Porsche Cayenne and carries a $3000 tote, she isn't "held back", she's the aggressor.

Are you really that weak that you get distracted by that and can't control yourself? That says more about you than her, me thinks. (Personally, I wouldn't find the woman you describe attractive.)

Originally Posted by subego

Is handing me this setup on a silver platter meant to be a test of my maturity?

Well, I was talking about one specific area. And you know that I say this with love and not to disparage you.

Originally Posted by subego

Which specific part is me being immature? Just to note, this was a one-off, and she lives in Wyoming. Seeing her again is unlikely.

But it stands to reason that you will behave similarly in similar situations involving other women. I find it immature that you view the interaction between men and women through the lens of whether this person might be a potential mate. I know we are all wired this way, but our brains are computers and we can update our software. Once you achieve this, it really changes your life and especially the life of women you meet professionally.

Are you really that weak that you get distracted by that and can't control yourself? That says more about you than her, me thinks. (Personally, I wouldn't find the woman you describe attractive.)

Not as much as it says about you. Gosh, that's a whole lot of projection, there. Nowhere did it indicate that I "couldn't control myself" or that I'm distracted. I've never been anything but cordial with her (I tend to like sexually aggressive women, even though I don't partake).

Do YOU have impulse control and get distracted easily? Bet you do, given that you automatically say she isn't attractive w/o seeing her (aka. slut-shaming). No doubt you must be in hell every time you go to the beach and see girls in swimsuits.

"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr

Not as much as it says about you. Gosh, that's a whole lot of projection, there. Nowhere did it indicate that I "couldn't control myself" or that I'm distracted. I've never been anything but cordial with her (I tend to like sexually aggressive women, even though I don't partake).

Well, it sounded as if you were irked by her dress and behavior.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants

Do YOU have impulse control and get distracted easily? Bet you do, given that you automatically say she isn't attractive w/o seeing her (aka. slut-shaming).

Who is projecting now?

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants

No doubt you must be in hell every time you go to the beach and see girls in swimsuits.

I went to the sauna for years with female friends and my family, it's part of the culture in the south of Germany. (I used to meet every with two female and a male friend for running and swimming, and we went to the sauna afterwards to relax and talk. I can't do that anymore since moving to Japan as everything is separated by gender here.) Don't worry, I'm completely fine with nudity and don't associate swim suits or nudity or revealing shirts with a sexual reaction.

So in your opinion, not only can I not control myself, because I happen to notice details about everyone I meet, I'm irked by this woman now? I enjoy the view, but I also realize she's preying on male desire to make $$. The only thing that "irks" me is she feels the need to hide her marriage status, I see that as a probable weakness in character (because cheating is a weakness in character), and doing business with people who have such character flaws can be perilous. It pays to be more watchful of all transactions you have with them.

Who is projecting now?

You still, because...

I went to the sauna for years with female friends and my family, it's part of the culture in the south of Germany. (I used to meet every with two female and a male friend for running and swimming, and we went to the sauna afterwards to relax and talk. I can't do that anymore since moving to Japan as everything is separated by gender here.) Don't worry, I'm completely fine with nudity and don't associate swim suits or nudity or revealing shirts with a sexual reaction.

... you're fine w/ nudity and don't relate it to sex, so you then boldly proclaim a particular woman can't be physically attractive to you, sight unseen, because you've heard she has a proclivity to wear semi-open blouses and tight jeans on sales calls?

(
Last edited by Cap'n Tightpants; Aug 16, 2017 at 11:39 AM.
)

"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr

Which specific part is me being immature? Just to note, this was a one-off, and she lives in Wyoming. Seeing her again is unlikely.

If you can't do your job when an attractive woman (or even just parts of one) are around, you make yourself sound like a horny teenager. You probably ought to be able to handle this sort of thing without alienating or offending anyone by now, don't you think?

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....

If you can't do your job when an attractive woman (or even just parts of one) are around, you make yourself sound like a horny teenager. You probably ought to be able to handle this sort of thing without alienating or offending anyone by now, don't you think?

After all don't women have to inflict wearing Burkhas on themselves because you, know, otherwise men just can't help themselves.

This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!